Bullying Prevention Institute

Transcription

2
BULLYING PREVENTION:
THE IMPACT ON PENNSYLVANIA
SCHOOL CHILDREN
A report on Bullying Prevention Successes achieved through Highmark Healthy High 5,
an initiative of the Highmark Foundation.
2
Prepared by Windber Research Institute in collaboration with the Center
for Safe Schools and Clemson University
Contributors from Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention,
Windber Research Institute:
Matthew Masiello, M.D., M.P.H, FAAP - Chief Medical Officer and Director
Diana Schroeder, M.S.N, RN - Director of Bullying Prevention Initiatives
Shiryl Barto, M.Ed. - Olweus Technical Assistance Consultant and certified
trainer for the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, Coordiantor Bullying Prevention Initiatives
Allison Messina, M.H.P.E. - Coordinator of Bullying Prevention Initiatives
Karla Good, M.S.W. - Coordinator of Bullying Prevention Initiatives and
Community Outreach Coordinator of the Combat Stress Intervention Program
Charvonne Holliday, M.P.H - Program Director of Combat Stress Intervention
Program and Coordinator of Bullying Prevention Initiatives and School Health
Council and Communications
LaShae Jeffers, M.A. - Public Health Associate
Betsy Schroeder, M.P.H. - Research Assistant
Contributors from Center for Safe Schools:
Ben Cohen, Ph.D. - Director of Evaluation
Lynn Cromley, Ed.M. - Director
Heather Cecil, Ph.D. - Evaluation Coordinator
Stacie Molnar-Main, M.S.Ed - Strategic Initiatives Manager
Michelle Nutter - Safe Schools Program Manager
Contributors from Clemson University:
Susan P. Limber, M.A., M.L.S, Ph.D. - Professor, Institute on Family
& Neighborhood Life
Osnat Lavenda, Ph.D. - Research Associate, Institute on Family
& Neighborhood Life
Highmark Foundation:
Janine A. Pearson, Ph.D. - Project Manager, Highmark Inc.
Janice E. Seigle, M.P.M. - Strategic Corporate Initiatives Director, Highmark Inc.
“A health-promoting school is a place where all members of the school community work together to provide
students with integrated and positive experiences and structures, which promote and protect their health.”
World Health Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................................................. 1
Background........................................................................ 2
Approach to Bullying Prevention............................................ 4 Building Coalition
Evidence-Based Program
Monitoring and Evaluation
Adapt, Modify, Enhance...................................................... 17
Sustaining with Fidelity...................................................... 20
Report
......................................................................... 22
Conclusions...................................................................... 23
Appendices....................................................................... 25 I. 2011 Methodology Report of OBQ Analysis
II. Schools Included in the 2011 Analysis
III. Schools Excluded from 2011 Analysis
IV. Continuing Educational Events
V. Professional Presentations and Publications
References....................................................................... 41
2
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bullying Prevention: The Impact on Pennsylvania School Children, 2011 is the second formal report
on the Highmark Foundation’s bullying prevention initiative. This project continues to be the largest
implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) in the U.S. The previous 2009
report, Bullying Prevention – A Statewide Collaborative Effort That Works, introduced the leadership role
of the Highmark Foundation and its partners who developed and implemented the initiative in schools
throughout Pennsylvania. The 2009 report commented on the seriousness of bullying as it relates to
health, education and society and the effectiveness of the evidenced-based OBPP, and presented
preliminary data findings that demonstrated the early success of the program involving 56,000 students
at 100 schools.
This 2011 report is a very different document. We are now able to comment on the depth and magnitude
of the bullying prevention program outcomes two years after implementation among a larger group
of students and schools, as well as comment on the significance and scope of the evaluation of this
five-year initiative (2007-2012). Enhancements included activities such as the development of quality
assurance strategies and continuing education processes for administrators and educators.
Among this report’s findings:
• Students’ reports of being bullied and bullying others declined
• Students felt adults at their school tried to stop bullying
• Students themselves were more likely to help a student who was being bullied
Based on the public health model, the formation of a broad coalition led by the Highmark Foundation,
and consisting of individuals with expertise in evidence-based program implementation, K-12 education
and public health, allowed for this project’s evaluation to include not only the evaluation of student survey
data, but also other process and impact evaluation methods.
Health and educational (school-based) capacity is built on effective
and visionary leadership and management. The ability to provide
extensive internal and external supports, adequate resources,
appropriate policies and procedures, and ongoing, embedded
professional development to our Pennsylvania efforts have built
capacity that will most certainly improve student health, safety and
achievement and should serve as a model in that effort.
2
Through the efforts of this project’s key partners, a
$9 million investment has transformed an evidence
based bullying prevention program into a large-scale
public health dissemination. It has created a streamlined
approach to address bullying which has resulted in positive
outcomes for students and a cost benefit to investors.
The work is not complete, however. Successful attempts to
address other health and social epidemics have taken a
generation or more to change negative behaviors to positive behaviors. While this has been a momentous
beginning, the task of this coalition is to continue the work
presented in this report. Time is needed to finish data collection and analysis, to assess schools’ ongoing and
evolving bullying prevention needs, to further investigate
specific population concerns (i.e. high school bullying, urban versus rural implementation, parent engagement, school administrator responsiveness, etc.) and to draw national level conclusions.
In March of 2011, the White
House convened its first bullying
prevention summit which
brought together leading bullying
prevention experts to facilitate a
larger scale look at this epidemic.
Recently, Pennsylvania passed its
first legislation regarding bullying in
schools, and related bills address
nuances of this law. Now more
than at any other time in history, a
coordinated effort that integrates
school, public health, political and
social levers to address bullying
is critical. Such coordination will
be important to identifying positive
and sustainable outcomes.
It is our hope that our national and international educational and public health colleagues benefit
from the efforts represented by this report.
Matthew G. Masiello, MD, MPH
Director, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention,
Windber Research Institute
BACKGROUND
Bullying is a widespread and pervasive epidemic that affects approximately one in three school children
in the U.S. today. Characterized by an imbalance of power and aggressive behaviors over time,
bullying has become one of the focus points of American school climate due to its detrimental
short- and long-term consequences of those children involved. Since 1999, 45 states have passed
anti-bullying legislation and federal lawmakers, including President Obama, have placed bullying on the
national agenda.
2
3
The scope and impact of bullying demands a coherent,
integrated and comprehensive public health approach. In
Pennsylvania, the bullying prevention effort of the
Highmark Foundation has utilized this public health
approach to successfully implement what is now the
largest application of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program in the U.S.
By project’s end, more than 210,000 students will have
been exposed to effective bullying prevention strategies.
The OBPP is the world’s most researched bullying
prevention program.
The health issues experienced by children involved in
bullying -- whether participating in, being
targeted by or witnessing bullying behaviors-- are
significant. Headaches, stomachaches and sleep
problems are only a few of the physical and/or
The public health approach to
bullying prevention:
- Systematic collection of information about the problem
- Using research to determine the causes and effects of the problems
-
Finding out what works to
address the problem by designing, implementing and evaluating the intervention
-
Implementing effective
interventions in a wide range of settings, while monitoring
and evaluating the target
outcomes impact and cost-
effectiveness. Source: WHO Violence Prevention Alliance www.int/violenceprevention/
approach/public health
psychosomatic symptoms faced by some children.
Additionally, anxiety, depression and other mood
disorders are significantly associated with children who are bullied in school.
Academically, bullying takes a toll. Research has shown that children who are excluded from the peer
group in early grades are at greater risk of academic difficulties. Socially, boys who were identified as
bullies in middle school were over three times as likely to have multiple criminal convictions by their early
20’s, and higher self-reports of drug and alcohol use.
They also are more likely than their peers to be involved in other
antisocial, violent, or troubling behavior, including fighting,
vandalism, stealing, weapon-carrying, school drop-out, and poor
school achievement (Byrne, 1994; Gini & Pozzoll, 2009; Haynie,
Nansel, Eltel, Crump, Saylor, Yu, &Simons-Morton, 2001;
Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993).
4
APPROACH
TO BULLYING
PREVENTION
The Highmark Foundation, realizing the
importance of a safe school climate to the
overall health and well-being of children,
has reinforced its bullying prevention effort
with the science and research of public
Public Health
Approach
health. The components of the public health
approach are meant to decrease effects of an
issue threatening the health of a population
1. Build Coalition
through the organized efforts and informed
choices of society, organizations (public and
private), communities and individuals. The
2.Evidence Based
Program
importance of this effort lies not in the size
of the population that is targeted, but in the
3. Monitor & Evaluate
ability of the process to promote systems
5. Sustain with Fidelity
6. Report of Impact
6. State of Bullying
Report, continuous
evaluation process
mitigates the myth that bullying is a “rite of
prevention is to align the strategies that have
proven successful in the field with resources
and innovation meant to effect change over
a large population. Through the collection,
analysis and interpretation of data, bullying
prevention becomes more refined and
effective. In the following sections, each
phase of the public health model will be
described as it relates to bullying prevention
work funded by Highmark Healthy High 5.
3. Evaluation: Process,
Outcomes, Fidelity
5. Fidelity Supports:
Continuing Education,
Networking, OQAS, Fidelity Reports and
Site Visits
viewed in the domain of health care, and
Foundation’s intent in supporting bullying
2.Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program
(HALT! and PA Cares)
4. Adapt, Modify,
Enhance
to bullying allows the topic to be accurately
passage” or just “kids being kids.” Highmark
1. Highmark
Foundation
Research Institute
Center for Safe Schools Clemson
Universtiy
4. OBPP Innovations in U.S. Schools: Trainer
recertification,
increased trainer/
material support to schools, High
School
implementation,
Readiness Site Visits
change and build capacity.
The unique lens that public health brings
PA Bullying
Prevention
5
1. Build Coalition
The importance of community partnerships and coalitions has long been identified as an important first step in
local initiatives. These types of coalitions typically consist of leading experts and organizations in the field, both
public and private sectors, including universities, schools, research institutions, state departments of health, and
health care organizations. The coalition associated with this particular bullying prevention initiative included the
Highmark Foundation; Clemson University’s Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life (IFNL); program founder
Dan Olweus of the University of Bergen, Norway; the Windber Research Institute (WRI); and the Center for Safe
Schools (CSS), affiliated with the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The partnership with Clemson University
is significant as the IFNL serves as a national leader on bullying prevention. IFNL is a consultant to the Highmark
Healthy High 5 Bullying Prevention Institute (BPI), created by Highmark Foundation to support bullying prevention
activities, and serves as primary evaluator of this project. Their national and international expertise in the field of
bullying prevention has provided important guidance in the development, implementation and evaluation of bullying prevention efforts.
As a result of Highmark Foundation’s funding and the coalition that subsequently formed, numerous schools in
Pennsylvania were given the means and support to implement the OBPP over a three-year period. Utilizing the
Public Health Model, WRI and CSS carry out three main efforts, centered around the OBPP, to address bullying
within Highmark Foundation’s 49-county, Pennsylvania service area.
• Highmark Healthy High 5 HALT!® A Bullying Prevention Program – Managed by the Center for Health
Promotion and Disease Prevention, Windber Research Institute, Windber, Pa. The HALT! program is a
district-wide approach to bullying prevention. Public schools that agreed to implement the OBPP at the
district level were eligible to participate. During the first year of OBPP implementation, a certified Olweus
trainer provided trainings and ongoing support to the district for 8 hours/week. Four (virtual) Regional
Centers for Excellence were created in southwestern Pennsylvania, the Allegheny County area, the Erie area,
and the York/Harrisburg area to coordinate this effort. In the first year, participating school districts received
all OBPP trainings, OBPP materials, supplemental materials, and survey instruments, including the Olweus
Bullying Questionnaire. During years two and three, participating districts received ongoing technical
assistance and survey instruments.
• PA CARES (Creating an Atmosphere of Respect and Environment for Success) Managed by the Center for
Safe Schools, a division of the Center for Schools and Communities of the Central Susquehanna
Intermediate Unit. PA CARES provides grants to individual public or private school buildings interested in
implementing the OBPP. During the first year of OBPP implementation, a certified Olweus trainer provided
trainings and 15 hours of ongoing support to each individual school building. Like HALT!, during the first year,
participating schools received all OBPP trainings, OBPP materials, supplemental materials, and survey
6
instruments, including the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire. During years two and three, participating districts
received ongoing technical assistance and survey instruments. PA CARES also oversees Pennsylvania’s bullying
prevention network and works to expand the number of certified OBPP trainers in the state.
• Highmark Healthy High 5 Bullying Prevention Institute (BPI) Created shortly after the launch of the Highmark
Healthy High 5, BPI provides continuing education opportunities for school staff, evaluation and research of the implementation process and program outcomes, and the development of enhancements to the OBPP based on needs identified during implementation. BPI has built capacity for sustaining, with fidelity, bullying
prevention efforts.
PA CARES AND HALT Grantees 2008-2011
Bullying Prevention
in Pennsylvania
HALT
PA CARES
2. Evidence-Based Program
The public health approach promotes the implementation of evidenced-based interventions and prevention programs. Evidenced-based programs have been systematically researched and shown to make a
positive difference in individuals. The OBPP has been classified as a model program by the Blueprints for
Violence Prevention, a project of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of
Colorado.�
The OBPP uses four areas of concentration to enable schools to address bullying systemically.
1. School Level measures focus on training the entire school staff, including a coordinating
committee whose work drives the program in each building. This committee is led by an onsite
coordinator who works directly with the OBPP certified trainer and is made up of representatives
from each grade level or discipline area in the school building: an administration level
representative, other staff members such as counselors or school nurses, and ideally a parent
representative. School rules against bullying are posted throughout the school and students are
surveyed yearly using the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ) (Olweus, 2007).
7
2. Classroom Level measures include class meetings, role playing, and enforcement of school rules against bullying.
3. Individual Level components of OBPP help guide a school’s response and encompass
on-the-spot interventions, follow-up meetings with the student who is bullied and separately the
student who is bullying, along with increased parental engagement.
4. Community Level seeks participation outside the school, which includes the involvement of local
government, law enforcement, community agencies, media and other community partners who may
provide valuable time, resources and information toward the success of the program. Spreading the
anti-bullying message outside the walls of the school is an essential OBPP component.
Through implementation of HALT! or PA CARES, a certified Olweus trainer provides an intensive two-day
OBPP training among the school’s coordinating committee, a one-day teacher and staff training, and provides ongoing support during the first year of implementation. Schools survey all students in grades 3-12
prior to the start of the program to gather baseline information, then for three years post-implementation,
and work to develop an organized framework for prevention and response to bullying in their buildings.
A crucial part of OBPP implementation is training. Through its funding, the Highmark Foundation has significantly
supported the efforts of the CSS to develop an
infrastructure focused on training. The initiative has
resulted in significant support and increased capacity
among Pennsylvania’s Bullying Prevention Network of
certified OBPP trainers, convened by the Center for Safe
Schools, including a 28% increase in certified trainers,
“Implementing the HALT! program
has been well worth it. While it
takes a large commitment by staff
and students, done right, it greatly
reduces the instances of conflict
and turmoil in our school.” Megan
Kirchner, Assistant Principal, Moon
Area Middle School
bringing the total to 127; professional development and
networking events to enhance trainer capabilities;
increased technical assistance from trainers to improve a school’s ability to successfully implement
OBPP; and enhancement of tracking and monitoring systems allowing for an increased ability to identify
school level strengths and concerns .
Thus implementation of a multi-level intervention program and the growth of a trainer network have
resulted in efficient dissemination of an evidence-based program throughout Pennsylvania.
2
8
3. Monitor and Evaluate
Research consistently reveals that school-based prevention programs, including programs that target
bullying and school violence, that are implemented with fidelity are more likely to produce desired changes in behavior.1 To determine whether a program is being conducted as originally developed, there must
be an adequate monitoring process and empirical evaluation which provides feedback to the schools.
With respect to the OBPP, research suggests that readiness to implement the program and program
implementation monitoring are particularly important.3 45 With this in mind, the coalition partners have
developed a range of evaluation strategies to assess project outcomes, monitor sites’ implementation,
and determine schools’ readiness.
As previously mentioned, this project has become the largest implementation and evaluation of the OBPP
in the U.S. and by 2012 will reach:
• approximately 210,000 out of 1,775,029 school children in Pennsylvania; (13% of the total
student population)
• 427 out of 3,280 school buildings; (13% of all public schools in the 49-county service area)
• more than 17,000 teachers; and
• approximately 345,000 parents.
The project involved multiple levels of evaluations and employed numerous survey instruments to gather
data, thus enabling the partners to utilize relevant data to inform practice. What follows in a description of
the survey tools and highlights of their resulting data.
A. Primary Evaluation Tools-Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ)
The Olweus Bullying Questionnaire is used to collect student data on bullying problems, attitudes regarding bullying, bystander perceptions of bullying, and satisfaction with school. The OBQ is the primary evaluation tool of the initiative and of the OBPP in general.
2
9
The initiative resulted in many positive findings across OBQ
categories, including bullying prevalence, types of bullying,
duration of bullying, students’ feelings and attitudes about
bullying, and students’ reactions to bullying. OBQ data suggest positive changes in school climate for schools participating in this project and further supports the idea that
many program effects are stronger after two years of program implementation versus one. It is important to
remember the establishment and utilization of evidence-
based programs takes time, and the likelihood for success is enhanced when programs are implemented
consistently.1 Researchers at Clemson University conducted an analysis in January 2011 involving
students from 139 schools (87 HALT! and 52 PA CARES). Results reported here are for schools in
the 2008 cohorts which had three data points: a baseline measurement in 2008 prior to program
implementation, then two post implementation measurements in 2009 and 2010. For purposes of this
report, Clemson University researchers used a measure of relative change2 which is calculated as the
difference in percentages between the baseline (initial or T) assessment prior to program implementation
and subsequent assessments (final or Tx where Tx is the most recent data point). (For a full reporting of
results and methodology, please see Appendix I.)
1
In order to be included in the analysis, the following conditions must have been met: schools had to have implemented the OBPP for six months or
more, and schools had baseline data and equivalent numbers of respondents across times and grades (80% or more). An age cohorts design (Olweus
and Limber, 2010) was used to analyze program effects. Data from two equivalent age cohorts of students are compared at two or more point in time
(pre-implementation and post-implementation). The measure was the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire.
2
As an example, if the percentage of bullied students in elementary school is 20% at Time 1 (baseline) and 15% at Time 2 (after 6+ months of
implementation), the relative change score will be -25% [(15-20)*100/20 = -25%].
10
I. Students’ reports of being bullied and bullying others. Reductions in students’ self-reports of being
bullied (i.e., responses to the global question of the frequency with which students were bullied) were
observed in all age groups, meaning fewer students reported being victimized.
Graph 1. Percent of Students Being Bullied 2-3 times/month or more: 2008 cohorts
(RC=Relative Change)
Graph 2. Percent of Students Bullying Others 2-3 times/month or more: 2008 cohorts
11
II. Students’ perceptions of adults’ responsiveness to bullying improved. Across most gradegroups,
positive changes were observed in students’ perceptions that adults in the school were actively working to
address bullying. When students’ perceive that their teachers are actively working to address bullying, it is
a possible indicator that the school climate is changing for the better.
Graph 3. Percent of Students Who Feel Adults at School Often or Almost Always Try to
Stop Bullying: 2008 cohorts
Graph 4. Percent of Students Who Think Their Teacher Has Done Little to Stop Bullying:
2008 cohorts
12
III. Students’ perceptions of students’ responsiveness to bullying. We observed reductions in
students’ perceptions that other students were actively involved in stopping bullying were observed.
These reductions were particularly strong among middle and high school students.
Graph 5. Percent of Students Who Feel Other Students Often Try to Stop Bullying: 2008 cohorts
IV. Students’ reactions towards observed bullying. Across most age groups, an increase in the percentage of students who indicated they would “try to help a bullied student in one way or another,” was found. Decreases were found in the percentage of students who felt they would passively observe
and join in the bullying.
Graph 6. Percent of Students Who Try to Help a Bullied Student: 2008 cohorts
13
Graph 7. Percent of Students Who Would Just Watch if a Student is Being Bullied: 2008 cohorts
There were also decreases in most groups’ reports of their willingness to join in bullying a student whom
they did not like.
Graph 8. Percent of Students Who Feel They Could Join in Bullying: 2008 cohorts
“At Blackhawk High School, the HALT! program has created more opportunities for rapport-building
between staff and students. The students have been talking more openly about bullying situations,
and they have started to trust the adults more.” Dr. Michelle M. Miller, Superintendent, Blackhawk School District
14
B. Additional Evaluation Tools and Assessments
Research has shown that school health promotion and disease prevention programs are most effective
when they are developmentally appropriate and when they take into account the relationships among the
student, family, school, community, and society. Research also consistently reveals that quality program
implementation, training and technical support are vital to behavioral change. In order to support quality
program implementation, several evaluation tools and strategies were developed and used to monitor the
implementation of the OBPP in the Highmark Foundation-funded schools. These additional survey tools
are used to supplement the student data collected from the OBQ and to improve understanding of the
program’s effect in schools. These surveys enabled data to be collected from teachers, school support
staff (bus drivers, aides, nurses, etc.), onsite coordinators and parents.
1. Teacher and Fidelity Surveys
Research consistently reveals that quality program implementation, training, and technical support
are vital to behavioral change. Surveys for teachers and support staff are important because they provide
a more complete look at the school’s overall bullying prevention program and how bullying is perceived by
these groups. If the adults in a school are not supporting the OBPP tenants, the likelihood of the program
being effective at reducing bullying is diminished. Teachers are critical for successful implementation of
the OBPP because they perform the majority of the program’s components. Both HALT! and PA CARES
utilized teacher and support staff survey tools.
• The CSS developed an online teacher/staff survey to assess how well teachers are implementing
the OBPP, as well as their attitudes and perceptions related to the OBPP. Twenty one of the 74 survey
items from the 2011 teacher/staff survey reflected specific elements of OBPP implementation. The
data were analyzed in order to develop fidelity reports, which were sent to each school, identifying
their areas of strength and areas of growth regarding OBPP implementation. This survey tool was
given to all teachers and support staff in the building. It was originally designed for schools that
participated in the PA CARES program, however, in January 2011, HALT! schools were also asked to
complete this survey so that a common survey tool, in addition to the OBQ, was available to
both projects.
• The HALT! teacher survey tool was designed by Clemson University and models the students’ OBQ.
It enables comparisons to be made between students’ perceptions of bullying in their building and
teachers’ perceptions.
15
These surveys, which are administered annually, have produced similar results and further support the
fact that the OBPP is working in participating schools. Several highlights from these surveys include:
I. Teachers report they are communicating anti-bullying rules and policies.
• Results of the 2011 CSS Teacher/Staff Fidelity Survey indicate that 81% of teachers believe they
explained the school’s anti-bullying rules and discussed them with students. Further, almost 83% of
teachers reported that they have posted the anti-bullying rules in their classrooms.
• Results from the 2010 HALT! Teacher Survey found that after one year of OBPP implementation,
teachers were more likely to feel that rules and policies about bullying had been clearly
communicated to students (38% increase), parents (49% increase), teachers (35% increase),
and other staff (38% increase).
II. Teachers believe they know how to respond to bullying in their schools.
• Results of the CSS 2011 Teacher/Staff Fidelity Survey reveal that 91.5% of teachers report that they
are “fairly clear” or “extremely clear” about how to respond to bullying. These rates are consistent with
the rates reported from a subset of schools that surveyed teachers over time.
• Teachers’ increased knowledge about bullying prevention is reflected in reports of their training
experiences and their capacity to implement the program. Results of the 2011 CSS Teacher/Staff
Fidelity Survey indicate that 60-75% of teachers “strongly agree” or “agree” that they received
adequate training to discuss bullying rules, conduct classroom meetings, and implement individual
(on-the-spot) interventions. Further, 74% of teachers “strongly agree” or “agree” that they are
confident in their ability to implement the Olweus program. • Results from the 2010 HALT! Teacher Survey indicate that after two years of OBPP implementation,
teachers feel more confident in their response to bullying. There was a 16% increase in the
percentage of teachers who felt “fairly” or “extremely” clear in their responses to bullying.
III. Schools are doing a better job of communicating anti-bullying rules and policies to parents.
• According to the 2011 CSS Teacher/Staff Fidelity Survey, in the first year of implementation, only 57%
of 2008 cohort teachers were “fairly clear” or “extremely clear” that the school rules and policies were
clearly communicated to parents. In year two of implementation, substantially more 2008 cohort
teachers (75%) felt school rules and policies were clearly communicated to parents. A similar pattern
was observed for the 2009 cohort of teachers. 16
• Results from the 2010 HALT! Teacher Survey found that after one year of OBPP implementation,
teachers were more likely to feel that rules and policies about bullying had been clearly
communicated to parents (49% increase).
2. OBPP Onsite Coordinator Surveys:
CSS annually surveys OBPP coordinators at each school to obtain information about program implementation of key activities (e.g., OBQ administration, training dates, OBPP committee meetings, consultations
with trainer regarding program implementation, as well as attitudes regarding the trainer’s effectiveness).
Open-ended items provided coordinators the opportunity to describe the successes and challenges of
OBPP implementation and changes that they have observed in their school resulting from implementing
the OBPP. The information obtained from the coordinator survey helps to determine whether schools are
receiving the support that they need; to monitor program implementation; to ensure that key elements,
such as required trainings, OBQ administration, etc. are occurring; and to provide the CSS with invaluable
information regarding each school’s unique experiences with OBPP implementation.
3. Parent Surveys:
Almost 7,300 parent survey responses have been collected since 2008. Each fall, parents of HALT!
children are asked to complete a perception questionnaire that asks what they think about bullying at
their children’s school, their feelings about bullying (“is it a normal part of growing up?” or “a harmful
behavior?”), whether they talk to their children about bullying and how well they feel that their child’s
school responds to incidents of bullying. In 2010, additional questions were added to the survey that
specifically asked parents about their knowledge about the OBPP. These surveys are another way to
encourage parents to be involved in the OBPP at their child’s school.
4. Readiness Assessment:
Readiness was an important consideration in identification of PA CARES grantees because research
indicates that schools that are ready to implement are more likely to implement the prevention program
with fidelity. Research suggests that examining needs, organizational structures and capacities, existing
policies, overall climate and existing resources are all essential steps to be taken prior to implementing a
systems-wide approach to improving school climate. Potential schools were required to complete an online course that addressed the issue of readiness (Readiness Series) and a readiness scale was included
within the grant application to provide schools with a threshold readiness score. Through completion of
the online Readiness Series, schools are able to determine if sufficient supports exist to implement OBPP
with fidelity. 17
In 2010-2011, applicants that did not meet the threshold readiness score were offered technical assistance from a certified Olweus trainer to improve their OBPP readiness. Schools that participated in
this “readiness process” and successfully addressed the issues identified by their readiness trainer were
able to improve their readiness level (n=39 applicants), and became eligible to receive the PA CARES
grant. Data regarding implementation fidelity for schools that applied in 2010-2011 to PA CARES will be
available in 2012, after they have implemented the program for a full school year.
“In Pennsylvania, we focused on two critical issues: pro-social behavior and academic performance. The outcomes of the large-scale Olweus anti-bullying implementation were a key factor in
allowing the Commonwealth to identify improvements in behavior.
Simultaneously, we saw our students’ mathematics and reading skills improve dramatically (the
percentages of our student went from the high 50’s to over 75 percent of children scoring at or
above proficiency as measured by the Pennsylvania assessments). I don’t think the outcomes in
each area were the result of coincidence; rather, I believe each area influenced the other.
And again, the bullying prevention coalition consisting of a regional foundation, educational,
programmatic and public health experts and their large scale implementation was and still is a key
factor in that effort.” Gerald Zahorchak, PhD
4. Adapt, Modify and Enhance
During the course of public health program implementation, various conditions may be uncovered
which could affect the reliability of program outcomes. The Highmark Healthy High 5 bullying prevention
initiative is characterized for the quick, calculated response to needs uncovered during early
implementation. This response has been facilitated primarily by the BPI. Over the past five years,
activities of the BPI, with content development provided by Windber Research Institute in partnership
with Clemson University and the Center for Safe Schools, have proved an invaluable resource that has
allowed for the enrichment of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program within Pennsylvania and nationally.
Whether directed toward program trainers, school systems or general populations, the Highmark Foundation-funded Bullying Prevention Institute has afforded the realization of crucial, missing pieces to the total
picture of bullying prevention. Several enhancements that have been made to the OBPP model as part
of this project were developed out of necessity to adapt a model based on the European-school system
to the unique setting of U.S. schools. For example, in Norway, where the OBPP originated, teachers can
devote more time to staff discussion group meetings than in the U.S.
18
• Bullying Prevention 101 - These events are designed to reach school-based professionals not
currently involved in bullying prevention efforts within their buildings/districts. These events provide
basic information about bullying, effective interventions strategies and background information
about the OBPP.
• Recertification of OBPP Trainers - Implementation of the OBPP with fidelity relies upon skilled and
knowledgeable trainers to provide high quality training to Bullying Prevention Coordinating
Committees and effective consultation to these committees during the first year of program
implementation. The first OBPP trainers in the U.S. became fully certified in the early 2000s. OBPP
program directors have long recognized a need to recertify trainers on a regular basis to ensure that
their knowledge was current, their skills were well honed, and their training and consultation to
schools were consistent across the U.S.
However, the development and implementation of a trainer recertification process was difficult be
cause of a lack of resources and a corresponding recognition that trainers themselves could not bear
the full cost of this process. Resources were provided to develop the trainer recertification process
(which includes a two-day face-to-face training and on-line learning modules) and allows for the
recertification of trainers in Pennsylvania. Recertification began in 2009 in Pennsylvania and remains
free to all Pennsylvania trainers. The process was opened nationally to all eligible OBPP trainers
in 2010.
• OBPP Companion Bibliography for Grades K-12 - Implementation of a comprehensive approach to
bullying, such as the OBPP, is likely to be best received by adults and most effective for students
when it is integrated seamlessly into the daily classroom routine.8 Providing tools so that teachers can
integrate bullying prevention themes with academic concepts and curricula can facilitate this process.
Youth literature provides a logical and effective link between bullying prevention themes and academic
goals and content. Educators and trainers in the field have long expressed a need for guidance in
selecting and using appropriate student literature and resources to supplement the OBPP, but no
comprehensive listing existed. As part of the Bullying Prevention Institute, Clemson University was
able to contract with expert Nancy Mullin, M.Ed., to create a targeted bibliography of student literature
selections and resources for educators and parents. The resulting annotated bibliography (which
includes more than 125 summaries of student literature and descriptions of dozens of useful
resources for educators and parents) has been made available free of charge to the 1,000-plus
certified OBPP trainers in the U.S. and all interested educators and parents.
19
• High School Implementation of the OBPP - Although the OBPP was originally designed for
elementary, middle and junior high students, many schools across the U.S. are attempting to
implement the program within high school settings. Prior to the Highmark Healthy High 5 OBPP
implementation, the program provided little formal guidance on implementation in high schools.
Moreover, little information had been available to gauge the extent to which the program has been
modified to fit the high school environment or to assess effectiveness of the OBPP in high schools.
A national working group consisting of trainers with experience in implementing the OBPP in high
schools convened to examine the extent to which elements of the OBPP had been modified for use in
high schools and collected ideas and resources to assist schools in implementing the OBPP
effectively. The culmination of this group’s work has yielded: (a) revised training materials (PPT
slides and agendas) for use in training high school Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committees, (b)
an annotated list of suggested supplemental resources and curricular support materials for high
school personnel implementing the OBPP, (c) a tip sheet for educators and family members to assist
them in discussing bullying with teens, and (d) the first ever Training of Trainers in the OBPP
specifically covering high schools.
These resources will be invaluable tools for trainers in Pennsylvania and across the U.S. who are
interested in implementing the OBPP in high schools but currently lack the program supports to do so.
• Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the OBPP-The overall Olweus Bullying Questionnaire database
which is owned by Dr. Dan Olweus is the largest database in the U.S. (and likely the world) on
bullying rates prior to and after program implementation among school-aged children and youth. As of
result of this project, data from Pennsylvania schools represents more than one-third of all responses
in this database. Through a partnership with Clemson University, this database affords analysis of the
nature and prevalence of bullying and assessment of the effectiveness of the OBPP in reducing
bullying. The very promising initial findings in PA were highlighted at a major international meeting
on bullying prevention in 2009 in Pittsburgh.
• PA Bullying Prevention (BP) Network Trainer Events are specially planned to cover topics that enrich
or increase trainer skills or knowledge, yielding more effective training of schools as indicated by post
event evaluation surveys. For example, a review of the post-event evaluation surveys from the three
fall 2010 PA trainer regional network meetings indicated that 92.4% of attendees rated the session as
“extremely useful” or “very useful.” These events occur annually at the Pennsylvania Safe Schools
Conference and regionally each fall, described below.
20
5. Sustaining with Fidelity
The Highmark Foundation’s bullying prevention efforts afforded increased capacity for future successes
in bullying prevention. These successes affect not only OBPP implementation, but sustainability of the
program over time and the need to continuously educate the population on bullying and related topics.
Efforts have resulted in Pennsylvania emerging as a leader in bullying prevention and effective in
responding to needs identified by program and process evaluations.
The following educational resources and/or processes were developed and carried out in conjunction
with implementation of HALT! and PA CARES to maximize fidelity to the program or through the support
activities offered through the Highmark Healthy High 5 Bullying Prevention Institute (BPI). (See Appendix
II for list of Continuing Educational Events.)
• Bullying Prevention 201 was created to meet the needs of those currently involved in bullying
prevention efforts within their buildings/districts. These events address topics not covered during
initial program implementation training and provide information that is essential to enhancing and
sustaining bullying prevention efforts within a school. Sessions have focused on topics such as cyber
bullying, hazing/bullying in school sports, utilizing data to enhance your bullying prevention efforts and
parental involvement in the OBPP programs.
• Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee (BPCC) Workshops allow for the networking of
committees from HALT! and PA CARES schools, regionally. These workshops create synergy
between efforts at individual schools, current factors influencing implementation and updates from the
field of bullying prevention at large. Attendance at these events helps to motivate school personnel
to sustain implementation with utmost fidelity, something that is crucial to achieving long-term,
positive results.
• HALT! & PA CARES Administrators’ Retreat offers administrators in schools who are participating in
HALT! or PA CARES a dedicated session to gain focus on effective policy, planning and intervention
strategies around bullying prevention efforts in their schools. Basic OBPP training stops short of
concentrating on the important role undertaken by administrators during implementation, one which
research reinforces as critical to success. This retreat provides time and opportunity for administrators
to reaffirm their commitment to the program in their buildings and plan any action that may need taken
to support implementation.
21
• OBPP New Hire Trainings provide new staff members at HALT! and PA CARES schools an
opportunity to be trained in the OBPP, thus formalizing and ensuring that the program mandate of
trained staff is fulfilled without financial or time burden to the school.
• OBPP Add-On Trainings permit alternate staff to train to become members of their schools Bullying
Prevention Coordinating Committee (BPCC.)
• Third Thursday Sessions are online coaching opportunities designed to reach educators across
the commonwealth at a consistent time each month. They provide education on high
interest/relevance bullying prevention topics (such as Coordinated School Health & Bullying,
Bullying and Protected Class Issues) as well as opportunities for structured problem solving and live
coaching related to the OBPP model.
• PA Network Trainer Events are specially planned to cover topics that enrich or increase trainer skills
and knowledge, yielding more effective training of schools.
• OBPP Training of Trainers increases the number of certified OBPP Trainers in the Highmark service
area, promoting more efficient recruitment, training and consultation of OBPP schools.
• OQAS- Recognition of OBPP Schools/OBPP Quality Assurance System - After an initial period of
training and implementation, OBPP schools may lose the focus needed to sustain programming with
fidelity. Dan Olweus and his colleagues at Olweus International and at Clemson University, as well as
trainers in the field, have long recognized the need for a process to assist schools, over the long term,
with implementation of the OBPP with fidelity. With generous funding from the Highmark Foundation,
Pennsylvania has been able to adapt and pilot Olweus International’s Quality Assurance System
(OQAS). Originally developed for use in Norwegian schools, this process involves the establishment
of clear quality assurance standards, the coaching of trainers to aid schools in meeting these
standards, documentation and site visits to monitor fidelity and progress, and an opportunity to revise
any practices that negatively affect fidelity.
22
Schools that successfully complete this process may proudly declare themselves certified “Olweus
Schools.” The pilot process in Pennsylvania has yielded the first three Certified Olweus Schools in the nation. A second pilot is currently underway and will be invaluable in helping to fine-tune the
procedure, which is intended to significantly increase the motivation and abilities of school personnel to implement the OBPP with fidelity across the U.S.
• Fidelity Site Visits -The OBQ and Teacher/Fidelity survey data were instrumental in developing these
fidelity site visits, which help to assure quality implementation. In order to address fidelity risks
uncovered in the data from HALT! and PA CARES schools, a fidelity process was developed by WRI
and CSS. This process provided additional OBPP trainer consultation for schools that needed
additional support after their first year of implementation. Fidelity support is significant, as the
greatest risk of failure occurs in years two and three. Through this process, schools are paired with
a certified Olweus trainer. Trainers meet with the school principal and other members of the bullying
prevention committee to review their OBQ results and to identify areas where the school has
challenges implementing the OBBP with fidelity. Schools receive an individualized action plan and
specific steps to address the problems. This process has positively impacted schools’ ability to
sustain the model.
6. Report
An important aspect of the Public Health Model is the sharing of information across systems to facilitate
widespread, positive change. The Highmark Healthy High 5 bullying prevention initiative has led to many
successes which have been highlighted frequently in Pennsylvania, nationally and internationally. Due to
the success of the initiative, CSS and WRI staff members have been invited to speak about the project as
well as submit journal articles for possible publications (See Appendix V). This report on the state of bullying prevention in Pennsylvania is the second in a series reporting the outcomes of this project.
23
CONCLUSIONS
In an effort to promote student learning and development, and to improve public health, there has been
a paradigm shift away from models that focus on risks that threaten youth to more comprehensive approaches that focus on enhancing protective factors.9 This project’s coalition of OBPP program experts,
educators and public health professionals has applied the evidence-based Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program to the largest population of students to date. The OBPP and other similar bullying prevention
programs have been effective in impacting youth development and preventing problem behaviors10 while
promoting healthy social development among all students.11 12 Given schools’ limited financial and time
resources, it is even more critical to implement evidence-based programs.
The depth and breadth of the impact of the Highmark Healthy High 5 bullying prevention initiative is
profound. It has exposed approximately 210,000 children (13% of PA students) to an effective
bullying prevention program, while successfully adapting and enhancing a model originally developed
for a European-school environment. Many of these program enhancements (i.e. trainer recertification,
high school support materials) are now available to any trainer and/or school in the U.S. that
implements the OBPP.
Many positive outcomes and key learning have resulted from this project, including:
1. The public awareness, partnerships and capacities built through the Highmark Healthy
High 5 bullying prevention efforts will remain beyond the scope of the project’s
original timeline.
Coordinated and intensive bullying prevention efforts that relied heavily on a coalition of partners with
commitment and expertise, which began prior to bullying policy requirements, helped ensure that critical
bullying prevention infrastructures, strategies and resources were in place to support schools in fulfilling
state mandates. Specifically, schools in the 49-county Highmark Foundation service area had access to
the OBPP, the support of a qualified bullying prevention consultant, quality professional development/
learning opportunities and fidelity support. This effort has established Pennsylvania as a national leader
in OBPP prevention infrastructure and implementation, such that Pennsylvania has the largest cadre of
certified Olweus trainers in the country and Pennsylvania students account for one-third of the data in the
OBPP national database.
24
2. The data supports that the program is making important positive changes in school climate.
a. Reductions in students’ self reports of bullying of others and being bullied are seen almost
universally across all age level cohorts.
b. Teachers report they are communicating anti-bullying rules and policies to students.
c. Schools are doing a better job of communicating anti-bullying rules and policies to parents.
d. Teachers believe they know how to respond better to bullying in their schools.
e. Teachers are integrating anti-bullying themes into the curriculum.
Eighty percent of respondents for the 2011 teachers/staff reported they ‘strongly agree,’ ‘agree,’ or ‘slightly
agree’ to the survey item, “I have integrated bullying information and issues into my curricula.” The OBPP
Companion Bibliography for Grades K-12 developed under the Bullying Prevention Institute aids teachers
significantly in weaving bullying prevention across curriculum, and since bullying is a school wide
phenomena, interventions must be integrated into the school’s curriculum in order to be effective.13
3. This large-scale implementation of the OBPP, reinforced by more than four years of data
collection, will positively affect the sustainability of bullying prevention throughout
communities in Pennsylvania for years to come. Dr. Olweus’ research concludes that the the
longer a school implements the program, the greater the results seen. The numbers of
teachers and staff trained in bullying prevention have sensitized a population that plays
a critical role in helping students remain safe at school.
4. The collaboration between the public and private entities involved in the Highmark Healthy
High 5 bullying prevention initiative marks a model practice for other organizations in the state
to join efforts to affect positive change across uncommon systems.
With continued partnership, the legacy of the Highmark Foundation’s contribution to bullying
prevention will be evident far beyond its 49-county service region, beyond the boundaries of Pennsylvania and perhaps, beyond the U.S.
25
APPENDICES
Appendix I
2011 Methodology Report of OBQ Analyses
Prepared by Susan P. Limber, PhD, MLS, and Osnat Lavenda, PhD
Who Were the Study Participants?
Participants were drawn from schools in the HALT! and PA CARES bullying prevention initiatives,
including 203 (117 HALT! and 86 PA CARES) schools that began implementing the Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program in 2008 or 2009. Researchers at Clemson University conducted an analysis in
January 2011 involving students from 138 of those schools (87 HALT! and 52 PA CARES). In order to be
included in this analysis, the following conditions must have been met: schools at Time 2 had
implemented the program for six or more months and schools had baseline data and equivalent numbers
of respondents across times and grades (i.e., 80% or more). The final analytic set included students from
40 elementary schools (28 HALT! and 12 PA CARES), 50 elementary-middle schools (31 HALT! and 19
PA CARES), 26 middle schools (10 HALT! and 16 PA CARES), 14 junior-senior high schools (9 HALT!
and 5 PA CARES), 8 high schools (All HALT!). Appendix III includes a listing of schools by
program (HALT! and PA CARES) and cohort (2008 and 2009) that were excluded from the analysis and
the reasons for the exclusion of each. Appendix IV includes a listing of all schools included in the analysis
by program (HALT! and PA CARES) and cohort year (2008 or 2008).
The number of students surveyed in each program (HALT! or PA CARES) and cohort (baseline data
collected in 2008, 2009 or 2010) are presented in Table 2. For purposes of this report, we have combined
the HALT! and PA CARES data and present data by cohort. In addition, we report data by student
grade-level, rather than school configuration.
26
Table 1: Student Participation in the Highmark Foundation Bullying Prevention Program
Evaluation according to grade levels
HALT! Schools 2008 Cohort
2008
2009
2010
N
(# Student
Responses)
N
N
Elementary Grades (3-5)
4,650
4,649
4,739
Middle School Grades (6-8)
3,966
3,954
3,798
High School Grades (9-12)
2,571
2,471
2,393
Total HALT! 2008 Cohort
11,187
11,074
10,930
PA CARES 2008 Cohort
2008
2009
2010
N
N
N
1,366
1,295
1,301
2,535
2,462
2,359
971
942
990
Total PA CARES 2008 Cohort
4,872
4,699
4,650
TOTAL 2008 Cohorts
16,059
15,773
15,580
2008
2009
2010
N
N
N
--
6,335
6,316
--
7,795
7,592
--
3,060
2,907
Total HALT! 2009 Cohort
--
17,190
16,815
PA CARES 2009 Cohort
2008
2009
2010
N
N
N
HALT! Schools 2009 Cohort
--
4,371
4,676
--
10,523
10,564
--
567
547
TOTAL PA CARES 2009 Cohort
--
15,461
15,787
Total 2009 Cohorts
--
32,651
32,602
27
How Was the Study Designed?
For the purposes of this analysis, an age-cohorts design (Olweus & Limber, 2010) was used to analyze
program effects. Data from two equivalent age cohorts of students are compared at two or more points
in time (pre-implementation and post-implementation). The measure was the Olweus Bullying
Questionnaire (OBQ, 2007). For ease of reporting, we grouped grade levels into grades 3-5,
grades 6-8, and grades 9-12.
The initial goal of the Highmark Foundation bullying prevention effort was to reduce bullying and produce
a positive change in school climate by the end of the three-year implementation period. Reductions in
bullying are measured using students’ responses to two key questions: the frequency with which they
have bullied others (Q24), and the frequency with which they have been bullied (Q4) 2-3 times a month
or more often within the last couple of months. Examples of impact on school climate include: students’
perceptions of adults’ responsiveness when a student is bullied at school (Q20), perceptions of their own
teachers’ effectiveness in preventing bullying (Q39), their perceptions of other students’ responsiveness
to when a student is bullied at school (Q21), the frequency with which students express fear of being bullied (Q38), and the frequency with which students themselves are active bystanders when they observe bullying (Q 36 & 37).
What Data Trends are Revealed?
Reduction in students’ reports of being bullied and bullying others.
Reductions in students’ self-reports of being bullied were observed in all age groups and cohorts. Among students in the 2008 Cohorts, relative reductions in being bullied (between 2008 and 2010 were
10% for elementary aged students, 15% for middle school aged students, and 13% for high school aged
students based on students’ responses to a global question about frequency of being bullied. Among students in the 2009 Cohorts, relative reductions between 2009 and 2010 were 9% among elementary
aged students, 17% among middle school aged students, and 5% among high school aged students
based on students’ responses to the global question.
Reductions in students’ self-reports of bullying others 2-3 times per month or more were observed in all
but one age group and cohort. Among students in the 2008 Cohorts, relative reductions in bullying others
between 2009 and 2010 were 27% for elementary aged students, 35% for middle school aged students,
and 41% for students in high school grades based on responses to a global question about the frequency
with which they had bullied others. Among students in the 2009 Cohorts, relative reductions for bullying
others between 2009 and 2010 were 28% for elementary aged students and 19% for middle school aged
students, based on responses to the global question. No relative reductions in bullying were observed for
high school students in the 2009 Cohort.
28
Students’ perceptions of adults’ responsiveness to bullying improved.
Across most age groups and cohorts, positive changes were observed in students’ perceptions that adults
in the school were actively working to address bullying. Among students in the 2008 cohorts, there were
relative increases in perceptions that adults try to stop bullying “often” or “almost always” by 11% among
elementary school students, 7% among middle school students, and 10% among high school students
between 2008 and 2010. Among students in the 2009 cohorts, there were relative increases of 17% for
elementary students, 9% for middle school students, and 2% for high school students.
Across all age groups and cohorts, there were even more dramatic changes in students’ perceptions of
their class or homeroom teachers’ actions to address bullying. Relative reductions in the percentage of
students who believed that their teacher had done “little or nothing” to address bullying ranged
from 20% (middle school-aged students in the 2008 cohorts) to 35% (elementary school students
in the 2009 cohorts).
Students’ perceptions of students’ responsiveness to bullying also improved.
Universally, across all age groups and cohorts, we observed reductions in students’ perceptions that other
students were actively involved in stopping bullying. Among students in the 2008 cohorts, there were
relative increases in perceptions that other students try to stop bullying “often” or “almost always” by 6%
among elementary school students, 21% among middle school students, and 32% among high school
students, between 2008 and 2010. For students in the 2009 cohorts, increases were 20% for
elementary-aged students, 11% for middle school students, and 12% for high school students.
Students’ attitudes towards bullying changed.
Across most age groups and cohorts, an increase in percentage of students who indicated they would “try to help a bullied student in one way or another,” was found and decreases in the percentage of students who felt they would passively observe and join in the bullying were observed.
Specifically, there were increases in the percentage of students who said they would “try to help the bullied student in some way or other” for students in the 2008 cohorts, ranging from 7% among elementary students, to 10% among middle school students, to 13% among high school students. For students in the 2009 cohorts, there were increases in reports that they would help a bullied student of 10% among elementary students, 5% among middle school students, and 22% among high school students.
29
There were corresponding decreases in the percentages of students who noted they would “just watch”
if a student was being bullied. Among those students in the 2008 cohorts, there were relative reductions
in self-reports of passive bystander behavior (“I just watch what goes on”) of 27% for elementary school
students, 17% for middle school students, and 33% for high school students. For students in the 2009
cohorts, relative reductions in passive bystander behavior were 21% for elementary and middle school
students and 20% for high school students.
There were also modest decreases in most groups’ reports of their willingness to join in bullying a student
whom they did not like. Among students in the 2008 cohorts, relative reductions in responses of “yes,” or
“yes, maybe” when asked if they thought they could join in bullying a student whom they did not like were
18% for elementary school students, 11% for middle school students, and 19% for high school students.
Corresponding decreases for students in the 2009 cohorts were 17% for elementary school students, 2%
for middle school students.
Appendix II: Schools included in the 2011 Analysis
HALT! Cohort 2
Acmetonia Primary K-3
Lafayette Elementary
Colfax Elem
Fairview Elementary
Springdale Junior-Senior High
Fairview High School
Abraham Elementary
Fairview Middle School
Benjamin Franklin Elementary
Cambridge Elementary
Bethel Memorial Elementary
Cambridge Jr Sr High
Neil Armstrong Middle
Maplewood Jr/Sr High School
William Penn Elementary
Seneca High School
Mars Area Elementary
Wattsburg Area Elementary
Mars Area Middle
Wattsburg Area Middle School
Mars Centennial
Harding Elementary School
Mars Primary Center K-2
Chestnut Ridge Middle School
Sharpsville Area Elementary
Forest Hills Elementary
Sharpsville Area High School
Forest Hills High School
Sharpsville Area Middle
Forest Hills Middle School
Brownstown Elementary
Turkeyfoot Elementary
J Fritz Elementary
Turkeyfoot Junior-Senior High
Leola Elementary
Smoketown Elementary
30
HALT! Cohort 3
Derry Area MS
Central York Middle School
Central El School
Elizabeth Martin Elem
Hampton MS
Reynolds Middle School
Poff El School
Thomas Wharton Elem
Wyland El School
Conestoga Valley Middle School
Foster El School
Conneaut Lake Middle-Senior High
Hoover El School
Conneaut Lake Elem
Howe El School
Conneaut Valley Elementary
Jefferson El School
Glenwood Elementary School
Lincoln El School
Grover Cleveland Elementary School
Center El Sch
Elk Valley Elementary
Holiday Park El Sch
Girard High School
Oblock JHS
Rice Avenue Middle School
Pivik El Sch
Maplewood Elementary
Regency Park El Sch
Saegertown Elementary
Adlai Stevenson El Sch
Saegertown Jr/Sr High
Connoquenessing Valley El Sc
Ferndale Elementary
Evans City El Sc
Indiana Area Junior High
Evans City MS
David Leech Middle School
Haine El Sc
Leechburg Area HS
Haine MS
Leechburg Area MS
Rowan El Sch
Ligonier Valley MS
Seneca Valley MS
Windber Area Elem
Seneca Valley SHS
Windber Area HS
Shaffer Primary Sch
Windber Area MS
Woodland Hills SHS
PA CARES Cohort 1
Ben Franklin School
Margaret Bell Miller Middle School
Blessed Sacrament School
New Bethlehem-South Bethlehem Elem School
Charleroi Area Middle School
Redbank Valley Junior High School
D. Ferd Swaney Elementary School
Redbank-Hawthorn Elementary School
Keystone Elementary School
Riverview Junior and Senior High School
Lafayette Middle School
Saint Joseph-York
Mahoning Township Elementary
West Penn Elementary
31
PA CARES Cohort 2
Avella Elementary School
New Wilmington Elementary School
Bruin Elementary School
Nitschmann Middle School
Cardale Elementary School
North Schuylkill Elementary School
Charleroi Area Elementary School
Northeast Middle School
Curwensville Elementary School
Penn Middle School
East Hills Middle School
Penns Manor Jr/Sr High School
East Lawrence Elementary School
Pulaski Elementary School
East Pennsboro Area Middle School
South Allegheny Elementary School
East Pennsboro Elementary School
Steckel Elementary School
Franklin Regional Middle School
Tyson Schoener Elementary School
George Washington Intermediate School
Washington Park Middle School
Governor Mifflin Middle School
West Allegheny Middle School
Iroquois Elementary School
West Mifflin Area Middle School
J.E. Harrison Middle School
Whitehall-Coplay Middle School
Keystone Jr/Sr High School
Wilson Elementary School
Kiski Area Intermediate School
Lehigh Elementary School
Winchester Thurston North Hills Campus School
Lower Macungie Middle School
Winchester Thurston, City Campus - KR-12
32
Appendix III. Schools excluded from 2011 Analysis
School Name
Had not implemented Didn’t have a
Did not have data
program for six or
kickoff or survey point or equivalent
date
numbers of responmore months
dents (80%) across
times and grades
HALT! Schools, Cohort 2 (2008)
George Washington Elementary
√
East Elementary
√
Hempfield Elementary
√
Lincoln Middle
√
North Hills Elementary
√
√
Ferndale Junior-Senior High
√
Edward Hand Middle
PA CARES Schools, Cohort 1 (2008)
A-C Valley Elementary
√
Ambridge Area Junior High
√
Beaty Warren Middle
√
Clearfield Middle
√
√
George A. Smith Middle
Hartman Elementary
√
√
Hatfield Elementary
Honey Brook Elementary
√
Kerr Elementary
√
Line Mountain Junior-Senior High
√
Lititz Elementary
√
Myerstown Elementary
√
Neshannock Junior-Senior High
√
North Side Elementary
√
Perry Elementary
√
√
Rochester Area Middle
Rowland
√
Standing Stone Elementary
√
Sugar Grove Elementary
√
Swift Middle
√
Tuscarora Junior High
√
33
Walnut Ridge Elementary
√
Warren Area Elementary Center
√
Youngsville Elementary Middle
√
HALT! Schools, Cohort 3 (2009)
Greencastle Antrim Elementary
√
Greencastle Antrim Middle
√
Greencastle Antrim Senior High
√
Burgard Elementary*
√
Doe Run Elementary h*
√
Manheim Central Senior High*
√
Stiegel Elementary*
√
Wheatland Middle
√
Roosevelt Middle *
√
Blackhawk High l*
√
Blackhawk Intermediate *
√
Highland Middle *
√
Seneca Valley
√
Dickson Intermediate
√
Edgewood Primary
√
Fairless Intermediate
√
Rankin Intermediate
√
Wilkins Primary
√
Woodland Hills Junior-Senior High
√
*denotes delayed implementation, 2
years of baseline survey data
PA CARES Schools, Cohort 2 (2009)
Bower Hill Elementary
√
√
Charles A. Huston Middle
Fairfield Area Middle
√
Highland Elementary
√
√
Milton Area Middle
Neshannock Memorial Elementary
√
Springfield Township Elementary
√
Sto-Rox Middle
√
NHS Autism
√
Zephyr Elementary
√
34
Appendix IV: Continuing Educational Events
A. Events hosted by BPI
DATE
Oct-07
EVENT
LOCATION
ATTENDANCE
Inaugural Hershey
715
BPI Summit
DESCRIPTION
Largest single-day gathering to date
focused on bullying.
Oct-07
BP 101
Hershey
130
101 Sessions are designed to
provide a basic knowledge of bullying to professionals just beginning their
bullying prevention efforts in schools.
Mar-08
BP 101
Cranberry
74
Township
101 Sessions are designed to provide
a basic knowledge of bullying to
professionals just beginning their
Apr-08
BP 101
Harrisburg
45
Dec-08
BPCC Erie
51
Workshop
Bullying Prevention Coordinating
Committees come together to gain
motivation and synergy in
regionalizing Highmark Foundationfunded bullying prevention programs.
Dec-08
BPCC Millersville
50
Workshop
Dec-08
BPCC
Cranberry
79
Workshop
Township
Dec-08
BPCC Johnstown
42
Workshop
35
DATE
EVENT
LOCATION
ATTENDANCE
DESCRIPTION
Dec-08
BP 101
Altoona
59
Jan-09
BP101
Lancaster
122
Jan-09
Stan Davis Johnstown
107
Session
Event hosted by WRI for schoolbased professionals to learn more
from Mr. Davis on intervention
and prevention
Mar-09
Trainer State College
25
Recertifcation
Event hosted by WRI for PA Trainers
needing recertified in the OBPP.
Oct-09
OBPP New
Erie
36
Hire Training
New Hire Trainings give new staff at
Highmark Foundation-funded
program schools an opportunity to be
trained in the OBPP.
Oct-09
PA Trainer
Harrisburg
50
Network
Event
Event hosted by the Center for PA
Trainers to learn more about the
OBPP Companion Bibliography
Dec-09
BP 101
State College
20
Dec-09
BPCC
Erie
57
Workshop
Dec-09
BPCC Pittsburgh
50
Workshop
36
DATE
EVENT
LOCATION
ATTENDANCE
DESCRIPTION
Dec-09
BPCC
Millersville
17
Workshop
Dec-09
BPCC Johnstown
16
Jan-10
OBPP New Harrisburg
21
Hire Training
Feb-10
BP 201
Harrisburg
27
201 Sessions are designed to bring a
more detailed component to
continuing education related to
bullying and prevention.
Mar-10
BP 201
Cranberry
45
Township
Mar-10
BPCC
Harrisburg
25
Workshop
Mar-10
BPCC Erie
36
Workshop
Mar-10
BPCC Pittsburgh
60
Workshop
37
DATE
EVENT
LOCATION
ATTENDANCE
DESCRIPTION
Mar-10
BP 101
Harrisburg
42
Aug-10
Stan Davis State
40
Session
College
Event hosted by WRI & the Center to
faciltate trainers and school
committee member networking
around intervention strategies
Nov-10
BPCC
Erie
46
Workshop
Nov-10
BPCC Pittsburgh
25
Workshop
Nov-10
BPCC Harrisburg
39
Workshop
Oct-10
OBPP New Erie
37
Hire Training
Nov-10
OBPP New Harrisburg
30
Hire Training
Dec-10
BP 101
Online
60
38
DATE
EVENT
LOCATION
ATTENDANCE
DESCRIPTION
Dec-10
BP 201
Reading
26
Dec-10
BP 201
Cranberry
19
Township
Mar-11
BP 201
State
22
College
Mar-11
BP 201
Shippensburg
54
Apr-11 Administrator’s
State
29
Retreat
College
First gathering of Highmark
Foundation-funded bullying
prevention program school
Administrators to better
understand and carry out their role
in implementing HALT! or PA CARES
Apr-11
BPCC Harrisburg
21
Workshop
Apr-11
BPCC Pittsburgh
39
Workshop
Apr-11
BPCC Erie
36
Workshop
39
DATE
EVENT
LOCATION
ATTENDANCE
DESCRIPTION
Apr-11
BP 101
Online
101
Apr-11
High School Bedford
30
Trainers
Session
Hosted by WRI & the Center to
disseminate new HS OBPP Materials
to selected trainers.
TOTAL BPI Events
2655
B. Events Hosted by CSS
BP Trainer Network Events
1. Peaceful School Buses Training (August 2008) – 41 participants
2. Olweus Recertification Event (Partnership with BPI) – 18 participants
3. OBPP Bibliography Training (Partnership with BPI) – 26 participants
4. Stan Davis Training Event (Partnership with BPI) – 38 participants
5. BP Networking @ Safe Schools Conference (May 2009) – 19
6. BP Networking @ Safe Schools Conference (May 2010) – 28 participants
7. Regional Meetings of the BP Network
a. Camp Hill (Oct 7, 2011) – 19 participants
b. Mars (Oct 19, 2011) – 40 participants
c. Allentown (Oct 28, 2011) – 15 participants
d. BP Networking @ Safe Schools Conference (May 2011) – 36 participants
Online Elluminate Sessions
1. Online Session on the PA CARES Trainer Expectations (2009) – 40 participants
2. Webinar for Potential PA CARES Applicants (2010) – 61 attended live session
3. Pennsylvania’s Bullying Prevention Legislation – approximately 450 attended live session
4. Bullying and Protected Class Issues (Feb 18, 2010) – 45 participants
5. Bullying Prevention in Urban Settings (March 18, 2010) – 20 participants
6. Bullying and Coordinated School Health (April 15, 2010) – 22 participants
7. Online meetings for Olweus Quality Assurance Process (March 30, 2010) – 20 participants
40
8. Online meetings for Olweus Quality Assurance Process (May 27, 2010) – 13 participants
9. PA CARES Fidelity Reports Introduction (May 20, 2010) – 9 participants
10. Protecting Kids Online (October 2010) – Archived session only
11. Bullying Prevention 101 (in Partnership with BPI; December 2010) – 103 participants
12. Staff Discussion Groups for Bullying Prevention (March, 2011) – Archived session only
13. Bullying Prevention 101 (in Partnership with BPI, April 2011) – 84 participants
14. How to Administer the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire Successfully – 16 participants
15. Bullying and Suicide: What Educators Should Know (May 26, 2011) – 186 participants attended live session, 98 people registered to review the archived session
Appendix V
Professional Presentations and Publications
Presentations
American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference (presentation 2009)
American Evaluation Association Annual Conference (2010)
American Federation of Teachers (presentation May 2010)
American Public Health Association (presentation 2010)
American School Health Association (presentation 2010)
Blueprints for Violence Prevention Annual Conference (Olweus Day) (presentation 2010)
Center for Safe Schools-Research Briefs # 1-3
International Bulling Prevention Association (IBPA) (presentations 2008-2011)
Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life Annual Conference, Clemson (2009)
National Assembly of School-Based Health Clinics (presentation 2011)
National Health Educators Society (NHES) Conference (2009)
Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (Webinar 2011)
Pennsylvania Corrections Education Conference (2010, 2011)
Pennsylvania Public Health Association (presentation 2009)
Pennsylvania Safe Schools Conference (presentations 2008-2011)
Pennsylvania School Counselors Association (2008)
Society for Public Health Education (presentation 2009)
World Health Organization (WHO) (presentations 2009-2011)
41
Publications:
Journal articles:
1. Schroeder, B., Messina, A., Schroeder, D., Good, K., Barto, S., Saylor, J., Masiello, M. The
Implementation of a Statewide Bullying Prevention Program: Preliminary Findings from the Field
and the Importance of Coalitions. Health Promotion Practice. Pre-published March 21, 2011.
http://hpp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/19/1524839910386887.abstract
2. Schroeder, B., Messina, A., Holiday, C., Barto, S., Schroeder, D., Masiello, M. The Role of a
Health Care Foundation in a Statewide Bullying Prevention Initiative. American Health Care
Management Journal. Accepted for Publication January 2011.
Self-published research briefs:
•RB1: Understanding Implementation of OBPP (Olweus Bullying Prevention Program) This
research brief explores the nature of teachers’ understanding of and commitment to a bullying
prevention program.
•RB2: Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Fidelity and School Characteristics. This research
brief takes a first look at how different components of the Olweus program function across
different types of school characteristics, such as school enrollment and school level.
•RB3: Bullying Behaviors in Pennsylvania Schools. Examining a sample of nearly 30,000
students, this Research Brief examines differences in frequent bullying victimization by key
school characteristics.
•RB4: Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in High Schools. This research brief is a summary of research on bullying prevention in high schools, with particular focus on the Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program.
2
42
REFERENCES
(Endnotes)
1 Mihalic, S. (2004). The importance of implementation fidelity. Emotional & Behavioral Disorders In Youth, Vol. 4, 83-105.
2 Jaycox, L., McCaffrey, D., Weidmer Ocampo, B., Shelley, G., Blake, S., Peterson, D., Richmond, L. & Kub, J. (2006).
Challenges in the evaluation and implementation of school based prevention and intervention programs on sensitive topics.
American Journal of Evaluation, Vol.27 No.3.
3 Vreeman & Carroll, (2007). A systemic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives Pediatric
Adolescent Medicine. 2007; 161(1):78-88.
4 Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & JH. B. Asendort (Eds.),
Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness (pp. 315-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5 Olweus, D. & Limber, S. P. (2010, November). What we are learning about bullying. Paper presented at the meeting of the
International Bullying Prevention Association. Seattle, WA.
6 Inman, D., van Bakergem, K., LaRosa, A. & Garr, D. (2011). Evidence-Based Health Promotion Programs for Schools and
Communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(2).
7 Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Implementation and evaluation over two
decades. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The international handbook of school bullying. New York; Routledge.
8 Karimpour R. & Rodkin, P. (2008). What is a hidden bully? http://www.education.com/reference/article/hidden-bully-popular
aggressive-children/Last accessed August 18, 2011.
9 Silliman, B. (2004). Key issues in the practice of youth development. Family Relations 53(1) p, 12–16.
10 Dariotis, J.K., Bumbarger, B.K., Duncan, L.G., & Greenberg, M.T. (2008). How do implementation efforts relate to program adherence? Examining the role of organizational, implementer, and program factors. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 744-760. 11 Greenburg, M., Weissberg, R., Utne, M., Zins, J., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H. & Elias, M. (2003). Enhancing school-based
prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist.
58(6/7), 466–474.
12 Walker, H.M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F.M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
13 Whitted, K.S. & Dupper, D.R. (2005). Best Practices for Preventing or Reducing Bullying in Schools. Children and
Schools, 27(3), pp. 167-175(9).
2
2
Highmark is a registered mark of Highmark Inc.
Healthy High 5 and HALT are registered marks of
Highmark Foundation.
For more information about the Highmark
Foundation, go to www.highmarkfoundation.org.
Copyright © Highmark Foundation 2011.
All right reserved.
CS 103604 10/11

Bullying Prevention Institute

Transcription

Similar documents

Web Safety

PYLUSD Parent University

bullying fact sheet - NAAFA

Lake Street Connection

CAnCer - Serrania Charter For Enriched Studies

BETA Bayou March 2015